"morals"

[///M power]

morals don't exist, it is an artificial term which cannot be defined or put to a test. each person will define the term "moral" in his own terms and personal characteristics.
I don't believe there are,or were morals in anytime or place in history. what guides our own decisions,our leaders,countries are a few things which determine our behavior and the way the world works(both kingdoms- animal/human)
1)evolution,survival of the fittest,domination of the strong over the weak,natural selection,social Darwinism.
2)rational decisions:individuals choose the best action
according to stable preference functions and constraints facing them(which option will benefit us the most)
or emotions- jealousy,anger,love,hate, and so on.
if we look at every country,empire and superpower in history, we will easily see that what guides them and navigates them,are exactly those few natural laws(while the emotions are more related to individual decision but not only). this is how nature works, we can easily see it both in the animal kingdom and human. we only need the moral term to justify actions to our selfs and to prove to our selfs that "we are different then them", who ever "they" are. and that we are "spacial" unlike the animals. when actually we all have the same goals and behavior in life,as simple as that.I didnt mention law, why? because law is a term which is different in each country,in each time, and is so easily changed or broken by those in power that it isn't worth mentioning. international law is also ridicules(as we can see if we look the past century and this one).

[Björn]

I disagree with logic and survival of the fittest but I certainly agree moralism is, at best, an abstract concept.

Morality comes out of the realization that people cannot and refuse not to live stacked upon other people in cramped urban enviroments. It gos against our natural means of existence. Thus, to keep crime and pollution from going out of control it is necessery to impose will against the natural instincts and behaviors of man. Thus the need for moralism is born. The world we live in today desensitizes us to violence, sex and toxins in order to make people more subserviant to this code of conduct.

[///M power]

I disagree with logic and survival of the fittest but I certainly agree moralism is, at best, an abstract concept.

Morality comes out of the realization that people cannot and refuse not to live stacked upon other people in cramped urban enviroments. It gos against our natural means of existence. Thus, to keep crime and pollution from going out of control it is necessery to impose will against the natural instincts and behaviors of man. Thus the need for moralism is born. The world we live in today desensitizes us to violence, sex and toxins in order to make people more subserviant to this code of conduct.

ok, my point is:
which empire in history was moral and which wasn't? which country is moral and which isn't? which religion is moral and which isn't? which race is moral? who makes those decisions? having morals as you say so,makes us better then "animals"? I would say the opposite since we are so much busy rejecting the fact that we are animals. we are worst then animals, being animals is a compliment judging by human behavior.
are your "morals" what makes us go to war for thousands of years? genocide?conquest?slavery?murder? this is your morals? I would say that if you want to talk about morals, better go look at the animals kingdom, much more chance you will find it over there.
I'm not referring specifically to your comment but also in general.

[Isra'il Yahya]

Morals exist primarily as means of social control. This is reflected in customs, laws, and other ordinances/cultural controls practiced by communities. So morals exist for the common good.

[Björn]

ok, my point is:
which empire in history was moral and which wasn't? which country is moral and which isn't? which religion is moral and which isn't? which race is moral? who makes those decisions? having morals as you say so,makes us better then "animals"? I would say the opposite since we are so much busy rejecting the fact that we are animals. we are worst then animals, being animals is a compliment judging by human behavior.
are your "morals" what makes us go to war for thousands of years? genocide?conquest?slavery?murder? this is your morals? I would say that if you want to talk about morals, better go look at the animals kingdom, much more chance you will find it over there.
I'm not referring specifically to your comment but also in general.

Perhaps you mistook my comment cause I am no advocate of morals. Are morals necessery to keep a happy and healthy mother from killing her own child? Of course not. Morality only exists as a way to slow down the process of social decay. When a civilization go's down hill it embraces morality as a means to slow down the process of death. So I agree with you I just feel it's Instinct that morality replaces.

[///M power]

I know I quoted you massage but I was expressing my ideas in general, thats why at the end I mentioned that my comment was not specific to you.
it is just something I had been thinking about for a while, these ridicules excuses which make people go to war so far away from them, and also using morals to conduct war.
example:
we are America,we are the west,we bring the light,freedom, we are moral. Islam is dark,backwards,tyrannical and inferior. there for the moral thing to do is to destroy their regime,country and give them "freedom".
now listen, I have no problem regarding the ideas of wars,conquests and so on, its natural and makes sense. its only so hypocritical to use morals as a justification to go to war. of course Islam does the same thing, its nothing spacial to the west, this is human nature.
this Islam/west thing is only one example, simply change these words and you will get any other dispute there ever was in history.

[Arminius]

Morals are a by-product of natural selection. They existed before civilization and religion. They generally help the selfish human need for self preservation, so they can live to pass on their genes and create a stable environment that can positively affect the survivability of any offspring. Angler and I recently touched on the subject, here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29595&page=2). So I do believe that morals exist and they have a purpose. They just aren't divine in origin.

[Björn]

I know I quoted you massage but I was expressing my ideas in general, thats why at the end I mentioned that my comment was not specific to you.
it is just something I had been thinking about for a while, these ridicules excuses which make people go to war so far away from them, and also using morals to conduct war.
example:
we are America,we are the west,we bring the light,freedom, we are moral. Islam is dark,backwards,tyrannical and inferior. there for the moral thing to do is to destroy their regime,country and give them "freedom".
now listen, I have no problem regarding the ideas of wars,conquests and so on, its natural and makes sense. its only so hypocritical to use morals as a justification to go to war. of course Islam does the same thing, its nothing spacial to the west, this is human nature.
this Islam/west thing is only one example, simply change these words and you will get any other dispute there ever was in history.

I figured but was just playing it safe :). Totally agree with everything you said there.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

"Morals" obviously refers to rules and conventions. Those rules and conventions, in turn, arose out of wisdom and experience. Morals certainly exist for the wise.

[Berianidze]

"Morals" obviously refers to rules and conventions. Those rules and conventions, in turn, arose out of wisdom and experience. Morals certainly exist for the wise.
But do morals exist in a metaphysical sense? What is the basis of morality if not social convention or the codification of social norms as justification for social posits?

morals don't exist, it is an artificial term which cannot be defined or put to a test. each person will define the term "moral" in his own terms and personal characteristics.
I see an instrumental value in morality; that is, it is the codification of what one wants to achieve - essentially mimicking a type of consequentialist form of morality dependent upon varying definitions of the "highest good" - whether it be utility, pleasure, abstaining from pain, contentment, or whatever.

[Starr]

its only so hypocritical to use morals as a justification to go to war

Of course it is, but it is one of the important justifications that is needed to get people on board to support the reasons for going to war. This, of course, shows that some sense of right and wrong is crucial to most people.

Certainly man is motivated by all of the things mentioned, similar to that of animals, but it is a huge mistake to overlook the fact that man does have something that sets them apart from the animals in that man does not act purely on instinct and has the ability to reason. And moral standards certainly are extremely important within a society. Without them you slide towards barbarity. Look at the modern west, and where the idea of morals being a social construct has brought us to today.

[Dr. Gutberlet]

Morals are not the sole province of the religious.

[Arminius]

Certainly man is motivated by all of the things mentioned, similar to that of animals, but it is a huge mistake to overlook the fact that man does have something that sets them apart from the animals in that man does not act purely on instinct and has the ability to reason.

Why do you assume that other animals act purely on instinct or that man acts on something other than instinct? I would put forward that man is an animal of his nature no less than any other. We are too busy with our own grandioseness that we don't see how we aren't really special. You have all sorts of examples where other animals show reason and intelligence and it is completely ignored - because man is supposed to be an only child.

And moral standards certainly are extremely important within a society. Without them you slide towards barbarity. Look at the modern west, and where the idea of morals being a social construct has brought us to today.

That's when you get into competing moral standards and ethnocentrism. The barbarians which you speak about are no less moral than any other people. They just have different morals.

[Berianidze]

You have all sorts of examples where other animals show reason and intelligence and it is completely ignored - because man is supposed to be an only child.
Such as? How do other animals demonstrate the faculty of "reason," and if this is so, what implication does this have on morality?

[Arminius]

Such as? How do other animals demonstrate the faculty of "reason," and if this is so, what implication does this have on morality?

Reasoning, specifically as it concerns problem solving.

It can be the use of tools (as shown in primates and some species of birds, for example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI4bNeXzXBY)), but of course the definition of a tool can be debated. The end result is the same, the use of an object, other than the body, to achieve something. I don't think a chimp just breaks off a stick and starts to sharpen it because it is instinct. They do it similar to how our early ancestors must've. Story here (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070222-chimps-spears.html).

I see it in my own pets too. The use of problem-solving (I say reasoning) to overcome obstacles. There are also examples of use of language by other animals. I don't think they have the same abstract sense of self or as complex of emotions as humans do, but then again I am not in a position to really know.

The implication on morality? There is none, as far as I can tell. It is still a selfish need that I discribed above, it just might not be contained within our species. Think of a wolf pack; they have evolved a social structure for mutual survival. Why not a primitive moral system too?

[Julian Curtis Lee]

But do morals exist in a metaphysical sense? What is the basis of morality if not social convention or the codification of social norms as justification for social posits?
Morals are based on experience with metaphysical reality, of course. Their purpose can sometimes be forgotten, and then people have to learn about these things all over again. Results, experience, observation = Wisdom. This is how we got our morals.

[Berianidze]

Morals are based on experience with metaphysical reality, of course. Their purpose can sometimes be forgotten, and then people have to learn about these things all over again. Results, experience, observation = Wisdom. This is how we got our morals.
How does one experience the metaphysical? When I think of the physical world I think of empirical impressions - but when i think of metaphysics of morality i'm thinking a priori concepts. This brings to mind Kantian deontology here - where reason is the basis for morality and that which moral commands of us is given through the formulation of the categorical imperative. Thus, the determining factor in morality is not so much its content, which is contingent, but rather on its form (at least in the first Formulation of the CI). Come to think of it, this seems the most plausible explanation for a serious system of morality - which is why I'm personally a big fan of Kant and enjoy reading his works. I think if morality were to exist on a rationalist basis it could only follow the CI was the universal truth regarding morality, namely in that it seems the most logically concrete and precise system of objective morality (note: objective in reference to form as opposed to the subjectivity of given maxims).

[Dodge Viper]

Morals exist in an active way, with a direct influence on events and circumstances. They have a metaphysical impact on our world, they are put in place to protect us from this other concept, which is Sin. This maybe a dirty word to most, but sin works just as efficiantly as gravity. Morals are safeguards against Sin.

Through moral awareness, sin is replaced by virtue, then the path is cleared to attain bliss, which is, after all, what human beings all seek.

[///M power]

so far I didn't get any specific answers to my questions form you "moral fans" wherever you are and got just theory talk,in reality the moral thing is only an ideal and it doesn't lead our countries in the present,in history and will not in the future. ill summarize the whole thing:




=MUSCLE POWER]
I don't believe there are,or were morals in anytime or place in history.

these ridicules excuses which make people go to war so far away from them, and also using morals to conduct war.
example:
we are America,we are the west,we bring the light,freedom, we are moral. Islam is dark,backwards,tyrannical and inferior. there for the moral thing to do is to destroy their regime,country and give them "freedom".


which empire in history was moral and which wasn't? which country is moral and which isn't? which religion is moral and which isn't? which race is moral?


are your "morals" what makes us go to war for thousands of years? genocide?conquest?slavery?murder? this is your morals? I would say that if you want to talk about morals, better go look at the animals kingdom, much more chance you will find it over there.

[Kriger]

Well, MP, you are speaking of one aspect of how morals are used in this world.

Morals are like anything else. Sound morals and values can be used for positive productive activites, or they can be used in a subversive manner in attempts to justify purposely negative and destructive activities.

For whatever reasons, as humans we have a need to rationalize and justify our actions, if not to others than certainly to ourselves.

Animals act in accordance with the nature of things. All too often, humans act in opposition to the nature of things.

Assigning morals to destructive goals is a uniquely human thing. Only humans are capable of doing this.

[Berianidze]

I've noticed basically everyone whose posted on the topic so far sees morality as having only instrumental, not intrinsic value. That is rather funny on a board like this, with many absolutists. Not a criticism at all, just an observation.

Also MP: I agree that morality has no place (nor has it ever) in politics, economy, or war. But your argument is incoherent and poorly worded-- hence I did not address it.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

I
I agree that morality has no place (nor has it ever) in politics, economy, or war. But your argument is incoherent and poorly worded-- hence I did not address it.
Actually, government itself is a moral construction, created through moral imperatives and values of the people. Economies also arise out of moral values. (Like, paying for something instead of stealing it. No economy without that little moral item.) Not only does morality have a place in politics, the economy, and war -- it has the central place. A father goes to battle protect children/wife/community out of a moral imperative, and not attachment only. In short, there would be no government, no economy, and no just war without morality.

[Starr]

Why do you assume that other animals act purely on instinct or that man acts on something other than instinct? I would put forward that man is an animal of his nature no less than any other. We are too busy with our own grandioseness that we don't see how we aren't really special. You have all sorts of examples where other animals show reason and intelligence and it is completely ignored - because man is supposed to be an only child.

I am not really sure how animals show reason, but I am sure you would agree, that whatever reason you believe them to possess, is in the very least very undeveloped as compared to humans. So undeveloped, in comparison that no one would ever concieve of the thought of animals living according to anything much higher than their base desires and instincts, which we expect of other humans in a civilized and orderly society. And intelligence is very different in different animals, but surely humans, on average have a substanially higher level of intelligence, compared to even the higher animals. As for acting on instinct, yes man is driven by instinct, but man, also very strongly desires to overcome and control his instincts for the benefit of himself and the greater good of society. higher man is driven by, but not a prisoner of his intincts. In some ways many of the problems in our societies today relate to the idea that we are no different than animals in any important ways and therefore doing or acting in whatever ways we momentarily desire(live for the moment filth,etc) is a positive thing. This is very disturbing. People seem very fond of looking at all of this as some kind of "progress", when the reality is these ideas are pushing us backwards.
And just because people use morality to justify immoral acts does not make morality irrelevent. This really just means that while humans are selfish and flawed they still have a need to do or support what is right(or what they believe to be right)on some level.

[Angler]

My view is that morality DOES exist in the same way that fear and love exist.

Who here would react emotionally in exactly the same way upon watching a video of children being brutally tortured as when watching a video about a man feeding the homeless?

My theory is that morality is a part of human nature and is rooted in the emotions. Its source, like that of all human behavior, is a combination of genes and environmental/social influences. And human beings aren't the only organisms to display moral instincts; other social animals do as well (e.g., chimps have been known to sacrifice their own lives to save others).

Concern for others besides oneself is the basis of morality, and it provides an evolutionary advantage to groups whose members possess it, since it leads to cooperation. Groups that cooperate are more likely to survive than groups in which everyone's stabbing everyone else in the back. And groups whose members survive are more likely to propagate the genes that increased their likelihood of survival. That's why we observe traits such as altruism not only in human beings, but also in all social animals.

All organisms, of course, have a self-survival instinct as well. This can conflict with the moral/altruistic instinct, but most generally I think the two instincts merely balance each other out. You do have people who display much more of one than the other, though. The sociopath cares only for himself, whereas there are others who care primarily for others (e.g., someone like Mother Theresa).

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Morality is founded on a sense of natural laws, as well as legitimate experience with same, and rational consideration.

[Arminius]

I am not really sure how animals show reason, but I am sure you would agree, that whatever reason you believe them to possess, is in the very least very undeveloped as compared to humans. So undeveloped, in comparison that no one would ever concieve of the thought of animals living according to anything much higher than their base desires and instincts, which we expect of other humans in a civilized and orderly society.

But humans mostly act on natural desires and instincts. He just has a better, faster processor, to use a computer analogy. What makes a person themselves is basically a combination of genetics and environment. The circumstances (environment) of the situation and the predispositions (nature) of the person will govern how the human will respond to the stimuli. This is true for all animals. If one breaks down the daily life of a person and analyzes the motivations for their actions, there are none that can't be attributed to a Darwinian motivation.

And intelligence is very different in different animals, but surely humans, on average have a substanially higher level of intelligence, compared to even the higher animals.

Not in dispute.

As for acting on instinct, yes man is driven by instinct, but man, also very strongly desires to overcome and control his instincts for the benefit of himself and the greater good of society. higher man is driven by, but not a prisoner of his intincts.

Man does moral ("greater good") things based on a selfish need. I touched on this in the Motivation of Morals thread.

In some ways many of the problems in our societies today relate to the idea that we are no different than animals in any important ways and therefore doing or acting in whatever ways we momentarily desire(live for the moment filth,etc) is a positive thing.

Man is an animal. Otherwise, I am sorry you are misunderstanding where I am coming from. I am not saying momentary desire is a positive thing. That would be in direct violation of our natural instincts. ;) We must plan and think ahead, for the survival of ourselves and the well-being of our offspring. This is how we are programmed by natural selection. Just as a squirrel can figure out that he needs to stockpile for the winter, so do humans know they need to not think only in the present. Like I said before, we are not very much different from other animals, just more complicated.

I put forward that man can't truly "live in the moment".

And just because people use morality to justify immoral acts does not make morality irrelevent. This really just means that while humans are selfish and flawed they still have a need to do or support what is right(or what they believe to be right)on some level.

Morally isn't irrelevant. It aids in human survival. There is just no divine meaning behind our morals. It is a natural by-product of our evolution and is quite healthy. What is unhealthy is usually what religion does to morality - perverts and disguises it.

"Without religion you have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
Steven Weinberg

[Geist]

Question for MP:

Is there no question of morality involved in the Holocaust?

By your logic Hitler identified the weakest of the German herd and tried to cull them.

[///M power]

Question for MP:

Is there no question of morality involved in the Holocaust?

By your logic Hitler identified the weakest of the German herd and tried to cull them.

the weakest physically, they were not socially weak this is why they posed a threat to him, and its naturals that he would try to eliminate the threat. this is an extreme case,but he was an extreme person, the threat in his eyes was so great that it would have needed to be eliminated in any cost. can I understand his thinking? his mind? sure I can. do I agree with what he did? no... but it is a good case for what I had written on this thread.

[Berianidze]

the weakest physically, they were not socially weak this is why they posed a threat to him, and its naturals that he would try to eliminate the threat. this is an extreme case,but he was an extreme person, the threat in his eyes was so great that it would have needed to be eliminated in any cost. can I understand his thinking? his mind? sure I can. do I agree with what he did? no... but it is a good case for what I had written on this thread.
So it stands you reject any moral claims regarding the legacy of the Holocaust; and in turn, that it was a morally neutral act that is neither "right" nor "wrong" correct?

[///M power]

Also MP: I agree that morality has no place (nor has it ever) in politics, economy, or war. .

agreed, this was exactly my point.

[///M power]

So it stands you reject any moral claims regarding the legacy of the Holocaust; and in turn, that it was a morally neutral act that is neither "right" nor "wrong" correct?

yes thats it.I don't involve the morals(right,wrong,good,evil) this is how I can judge events in a neutral point of view, and not by my view as a Jew that part of his family suffered.
according to my world view everything is understandable,there is no good or evil. only nature,and events that occur and that we can see within the animal kingdom as well(in a least sophisticated way of course,but for exactly same basic reasons).
what I am doing,even though I do have personal history regarding the Holocaust,is saying that even though it was horrible for my people, cruel, I will not use the "evil" term. was it wrong? yes it was wrong for me as a Jew, I do think it was very cruel,but when I analyze the characteristics of Hitler for example I can totally understand his way of thinking.to him,and his personal mind,views, the Jewish threat was like a tsunami wave coming straight at him,so he would have done anything to protect his people against it. it doesn't matter that the threat wasn't this big that it would have required such extreme measures. it matters only how he looked at the situation in his eyes, and there for understanding his actions.
what I am against is using the "moral" card to justify actions,either by America,Nazi Germany,Islam,Jews,and everything else,and I'm against using the terms "evil" and "good" which are subjective! whats good to me may not be good for another, or can be describes as "evil" by another.
I see the world as a struggle for survival which is very natural,no good or evil,just survival.

[///M power]

But humans mostly act on natural desires and instincts. He just has a better, faster processor, to use a computer analogy. What makes a person themselves is basically a combination of genetics and environment. The circumstances (environment) of the situation and the predispositions (nature) of the person will govern how the human will respond to the stimuli. This is true for all animals. If one breaks down the daily life of a person and analyzes the motivations for their actions, there are none that can't be attributed to a Darwinian motivation.


Man does moral ("greater good") things based on a selfish need. I touched on this in the Motivation of Morals thread.



Man is an animal. . I am not saying momentary desire is a positive thing. That would be in direct violation of our natural instincts. ;) We must plan and think ahead, for the survival of ourselves and the well-being of our offspring. This is how we are programmed by natural selection. Just as a squirrel can figure out that he needs to stockpile for the winter, so do humans know they need to not think only in the present. Like I said before, we are not very much different from other animals, just more complicated.

I put forward that man can't truly "live in the moment".



Morally isn't irrelevant. It aids in human survival. There is just no divine meaning behind our morals. It is a natural by-product of our evolution and is quite healthy. What is unhealthy is usually what religion does to morality - perverts and disguises it.

"Without religion you have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
Steven Weinberg

you have no idea how much I agree with what you had just written, I constantly every day say exactly the same stuff to people,I was amazed to see that other people have exactly the same views. I talk about it word to word in Hebrew almost all the time.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Even the motive to protect your own body, to protect it from destruction, is a moral instinct. How much more protecting others. And how much more the founding of nations. Moral sensibilities guide men in every moment, keeping them from behaving like animals.

[Starr]

what I am doing,even though I do have personal history regarding the Holocaust,is saying that even though it was horrible for my people, cruel, I will not use the "evil" term. was it wrong? yes it was wrong for me as a Jew, I do think it was very cruel,but when I analyze the characteristics of Hitler for example I can totally understand his way of thinking.to him,and his personal mind,views, the Jewish threat was like a tsunami wave coming straight at him,so he would have done anything to protect his people against it. it doesn't matter that the threat wasn't this big that it would have required such extreme measures. it matters only how he looked at the situation in his eyes, and there for understanding his actions.

I agree with all of this in bold. this is not a view consistant with the idea that there is no such thing as right and wrong, though, just that people might find themelves in situations and conflicts where they may have different views on what actions are right and wrong. On that I also agree. By saying "he would do anything to protect his people", you are morally justifing these actions.

If you truly believed there was no such thing as right and wrong, you would not need to understand it in this way in order to justify it. You would maybe take the view, possibly, that killing is neither right or wrong, even if it is done for no perceieved greater purpose, whatsoever.

[Arminius]

you have no idea how much I agree with what you had just written, I constantly every day say exactly the same stuff to people,I was amazed to see that other people have exactly the same views. I talk about it word to word in Hebrew almost all the time.

It is great to hear that there are a number of Israelis with a good perspective of things.

[///M power]

I agree with all of this in bold. this is not a view consistant with the idea that there is no such thing as right and wrong, though, just that people might find themelves in situations and conflicts where they may have different views on what actions are right and wrong. On that I also agree. By saying "he would do anything to protect his people", you are morally justifing these actions.

If you truly believed there was no such thing as right and wrong, you would not need to understand it in this way in order to justify it. You would maybe take the view, possibly, that killing is neither right or wrong, even if it is done for no perceieved greater purpose, whatsoever.

the good/evil , right/wrong terms are subjective, this is the point. someone can do "good" to group#1 while his actions will result as "evil" to group#2. these terms are useless! meaningless! we shouldn't analyze current events or historical events by using these terms. we shouldn't use them at all.

[Starr]

the good/evil , right/wrong terms are subjective, this is the point. someone can do "good" to group#1 while his actions will result as "evil" to group#2. these terms are useless! meaningless! we shouldn't analyze current events or historical events by using these terms. we shouldn't use them at all.


The concepts of right and wrong are not subjective. How people understand certain situations, like war, in what is usually a very one sided way and therefore apply these concepts, makes them subjective when used in this way. This is too easy to do and that is a good reason for throwing out the use of those terms in these situations, but it won't happen. It is much too good of a propaganda tool that keeps people focused on fighting and killing their "evil" enemies for a "good" cause. Understanding the enemy outside of "good vs. evil" for the masses often leads to less support for fighting that enemy.

[Geist]

the weakest physically, they were not socially weak this is why they posed a threat to him, and its naturals that he would try to eliminate the threat. this is an extreme case,but he was an extreme person, the threat in his eyes was so great that it would have needed to be eliminated in any cost. can I understand his thinking? his mind? sure I can. do I agree with what he did? no... but it is a good case for what I had written on this thread.

Good reply. I just wanted to see whether you could get into his mind.